Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdoliner | Hacker News Reader

From my reading it seems like the crux of the argument is this:

> We’ve presupposed a scenario in which there really is a massive oversupply of PhDs, and thus PhD students must be irrational for treading into an oversupplied labor market. But that’s simply not true. PhD “oversupply” is just a euphemistic way of talking about the fact that colleges and universities haven’t met student-generated demand with a commensurate supply of full-time, tenure-track faculty.

PhDs aren't irrational for wasting 5 years on something that won't net them a job... universities are shirking their responsibility to provide a job to those who demand them.

View on HN

Normally I'd agree. Especially if we're assuming purely selfish pursuits ("I want to fuck around in academia forever and get paid, supply/demand be damned!").

However, if I see it through the lense of someone who desperately wants to move the world forward -- and at any personal cost -- then I start to entertain the thought that, maybe, it's unfortunate that that some can't find jobs, and they're deserving of my sympathy.

Simillarly, I work on a bunch of OSS. A lot of it is based in academia and unlikely to become mainstream. I'm also unlikely to benefit directly from it, and I don't really enjoy the process of creation within the field of software. However, I feel that the stuff I'm working on -- even with the slim odds of mass adoption -- are worth dumping my time into because it'll move the industry forward if it's successful. You can bet that I'd love to get paid to work on this stuff, but I also understand that's unlikely to ever happen. And sure, I could let other people work on these projects so I can instead go off and have fun, but I believe that my background fills a particular niche that would likely be left open if I didn't sacrifice my time and energy in these pursuits.

Maybe it's the same with these PhD peeps. Each person believes that they're essential to progress, and their principles prohibit them from abandoning their self sacrifice in the pursuit thereof. I think I can understand the frustration; perhaps someone really ought to give these selfless people some money so, you know, they can make all of our lives better.

(In other words, I think "passionate (if not masochistic) altruism" might be mistaken as "entitlement" here.)

> if I see it through the lense of someone who desperately wants to move the world forward and at any personal cost then I start to entertain the thought that, maybe, it's unfortunate that that some can't find jobs, and they're deserving of my sympathy

Maybe it would work if PHDs benefited from some kind of basic income, as long as they dedicate their life to research or teaching. Tenure should not be the only way to achieve the basic necessities for researchers. In the long run society benefits from all the fundamental research being done, which would be difficult to sponsor in the private domain, where immediate profits are most valued.

"universities haven’t met student-generated demand with a commensurate supply of full-time, tenure-track faculty"

This reverses the normal definitions of 'supply' and 'demand' to make a weak point. Universities are the buyers, i.e. they have demand for faculty. The PhD graduates are the suppliers (of their labour), i.e. they can compete to fulfill that demand.

So to say universities have a responsibility to hire people, just because those people want/need jobs, goes against how we normally think about the way the world works.

No one owes me a job.

EDIT: zasz is correct. I read that quotation out of context, and as a result my comment doesn't address the point. I still disagree with the assertion, but for a different reason. Undergraduate students don't demand 'full-time' or 'tenure-track' faculty. Those aspects don't directly affect how well they are taught, or the value of the credentials they gain.

He meant undergraduate-driven demand for teaching faculty. You don't seem to have read the article.

Probably my fault for the confusion initially. I read it in the context of the article but still got confused about which the reversal of supply and demand.

This is a very long winded article that takes pages to get to the point (the part you quoted). The next sentences ought also to be quoted:

> Instead, we’ve rendered the majority of faculty contingent, increased administrators and administrative staff by 85 and 240 percent, respectively, over the past 40 years, and created a massive holding pen of temporary postdoctoral positions in STEM. If we look outside of academia for good measure, we see similar evidence of increased dependency on contingent labor, decades of stagnant wages, and no increase in leisure time to accompany increases in economic productivity. In this light it becomes harder to claim that PhD students are especially irrational or shortsighted, since so much of the broader US workforce is facing similar problems.

You seem to be framing PhDs as terrorists. Why is the university obligated to provide jobs when students come regardless of the extent its faculty is exploited?

See the next sentences in the article (which I quoted above).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com